A Trans-generational plan at Giza

Robin Cook

Abstract : A construction is described, based upon Petrie's survey, linking pyramid sides and centres
in plan and elevation. The plan is based upon the side and diagonal of a square, expressed in various
ways through a system of approximations first written down by Theon of Smyrna. It is suggested
that this relation may have been thought to have 'magical' properties, or represent a geometrical
metaphor, for death and rebirth.

The idea of an overall 'master plan' linking the pyramids of Giza has found little favour with
scholars, who tend to the view that each pyramid was designed differently according to the wishes
of kings, sometimes portrayed as rivals trying to outdo one another.
An alternative view is that kings, being superstitious, accepted the advice of priestly experts
to achieve the 'architectural magic' that would send them to another realm. Ideally, the egyptians
committed themselves to the pursuit of 'maat' - translated as 'truth' or 'order' : in daily life, in the
cosmos above and the land below, and as a measure of the moral integrity required for rebirth into
the afterlife. It is certainly the case that fourth dynasty architects were fastidious in the extreme in
attempting to align pyramids to true north; surely a commitment to truth. In a similar vein we might
imagine that great care was taken in designing them, and planning their dispositions one to another.
Here this proposition is examined with respect to the three pyramids at Giza..

Before examining the data there are a number of problems to consider. First the quality of
construction varies – for example, the lower casing of Khufu is renowned for its exquisite joints but
stones around the King's Chamber are rougher and not stacked with the same precision. Then the
diagonals of Khafre's pyramid are somewhat skewed towards the apex. The granite base of
Menkaure was not smoothed down, and the whole skewed relative to the other two pyramids. So
building error must be taken into account when assessing dimensions. Some evidence is missing
due to depredation, such as the limestone casing of Menkaure, leaving some doubt as to this
pyramid's precise intended height.

As to the reliability of survey data, Petrie's measures for Khufu (1), and the disposition and
size of Khafre, are said to have largely been confirmed by the ongoing Giza Plateau Mapping
Project. However, while Petrie's figures for the location of Menkaure centre relative to the other two
pyramids seem to be accepted, recent work suggests that the base is more irregular than previously
thought (2). Consequently Petrie's figures for Menkaure base are used in the following analyses
with some reservation.

The value of the cubit varied somewhat at different Old Kingdom sites, from about 52.3 cm.
to 52.8, with an average value of about 52.36. Using a method called 'inductive metrology', Petrie
derived his value for the royal cubit from measurements of the King's chamber. But the base of
Khufu, that most agree was intended to be 440 cubits, is the longest built dimension available for
measurement, yielding a cubit of 52.355 cm. and this value is used here.
 The two large pyramids were aligned to true north with surprising precision (average 3.5
minutes of arc discrepancy in the case of Khufu). Nevertheless, over such large distances on the
Giza plateau even a small angular deviation will affect east/west and north/south dimensions.
Because the orientation of the sides and passages of Khufu and Khafre is similar Petrie made this
the axis of his survey. Menkaure is rotated clockwise relative to the other two pyramids and I
ascribe this to building error in the absence of any other compelling explanation. Petrie's survey is
shown below -
 Below is shown the meridian section of Khufu, constructed using Petrie's measurements -

A root two division of pyramid height locates the floor of the King's chamber, using the
close approximation 280/198 or 99/70. Legon noted that this relation also locates the south wall of
the King's chamber and the south end of the descending passage, shown in red (3 ).
 Legon has also put forward probably the best known master plan for Giza, whose salient
features are shown below (4).

The plan is constructed from a square of 1000 cubits and essentially defined by the location
of Menkaure, giving an 'envelope' of 1414 by 1732 cubits (or root two by root three). However, the
east/west dimension is nearer to 1417.5 and a 'change of plan' needs to be invoked to make the
scheme work properly. Khafre does not have much of a part to play beyond dividing the north/south
dimension into the ratio 9:11 (precisely 899:1101). Nonetheless the overall relation is so striking it
is difficult to believe the architect was unaware of it. But was his aim really to build these gigantic
tombs simply to define geometric proportions? And why use 'modern' values for roots, rather than
the 99/70 approximation found in Khufu?
 In 1993 Gantenbrink first surveyed the shafts leading off from the King's and Queen's
chambers within Khufu (5). His analysis of the pyramid is shown below -

Gantenbrink discovered that the KC shafts indicate an elegant construction displaying

modules of 77 and 121, such that 77/121 = 7/11 – in other words the shafts describe the pyramid
plan and profile . (To the right, in blue, I have added the analysis defining the horizontal distances
to the north wall of the grand gallery and the passage junction).
Shaft exits are separated by 198 once again presenting the relation 280/198 (the black
rectangle) reducing to 99/70. We also see that the design extends 'below' the pyramid, such that we
have a square of 198 (77 + 77 + 44).

Amongst its other attributes the pyramid is thought to represent the 'mound of creation'
emerging from the celestial waters of 'nun'. Perhaps as the life-giving silt emerged from the flood
waters of the Nile after the inundation. At any rate the egyptians were extremely concerned about
flood levels, which might lead to agricultural disaster, and so built 'nilometers' along the course of
the river to monitor water levels. If the pyramid does represent the creation mound then where is the
nun ?
 In 1998 Butler proposed that the egyptians measured levels at Giza relative to sea level (6).
This he located 114 cubits below the base of Khufu. His scheme is shown below -

If the base of Khufu is 114 above sea level then the apex is 394 asl. The level at half this
height, 197 asl, passes through the mummy of the king in the King's chamber. (114 + 82 + 1).

The base of Khafre is higher than Khufu's. But which base? The pavement is 134 asl, but the
limestone base overlying it is 136 asl, and the apex 408 asl. A simple geometric construction (shown
in blue) accounts for the proportions of Khafre. Incidentally, the recent survey of Djedefre's
pyramid at Abu Roash establishes that it's apex lies about 14 cubits higher than Khufu's, or 408 asl
as well. It also seems to have been similar in shape and size to Menkaure's. (Shown above in grey
tint).

Note also that the horizontal distances from the centre of Khafre to the north base of Khufu,
and to the north sea level base of Khufu, are in the ratio 10 : 11 -

The lower part of Menkaure was cased in granite. Butler estimated the limestone base at 180
asl, thus pyramid bases are separated by vertical components of 44 and 22 cubits (180 – 136 – 114).
The height of Menkaure remains uncertain (268-269 asl) as does the slope of the faces (thought to
be very near to Khufu). He concluded that Menkaure limestone base length originally measured
140 cubits and that the builders had the intention to create a plan linking the sides of the limestone
bases.
 Butler noticed that at Giza chamber dimensions share certain dimensions -

He discovered that when scaled up, these chambers owe their proportions to the dissection
of the pyramid limestone base plan, as shown below -

Particularly impressive is the symmetrical disposition of Khufu and Menkaure granite-lined

tomb chambers (in red) relative to Khafre, and that chamber entrances line up with the east side of
Khufu (7).

Because the granite cased portion of Menkaure was left in the rough Butler decided that it
played no part in the intended plan. However, if we include the granite base in the plan then we can
explain the extension at site scale of Khafre tomb chamber and Menkaure antechamber at 315
cubits. This plan has the proportions 1417.5/1732.5 = 9/11 (7).

So now we have 3 possible plans to consider -

– Butler's 'limestone plan' defining the inner chambers, as above
– the 'surface plan' including the granite bases
– and a potential 'sea level plan' created by extending pyramid sides down to that level
 All this may seem complex and even dubious. But let us look again at the vertical section,
whose key dimension is 408 cubits. This is a term in a series, first mentioned by Theon of Smyrna,
which converges on root two at infinity -

1 3 7 17 41 99 239 577 1393 ...

1 2 5 12 29 70 169 408 985 ...

There are a number of ways of constructing it but the simplest is graphically through the
addition of squares as shown below -

Expanding the construction we obtain -

Let us now examine the vertical section using the numbers generated by this dissection.
 Khufu contains 2 sloping passages. The origin of the floor line of the descending passage
proves to be at sea level, vertically below the King's Chamber south shaft exit, and following the
diagonal of the double square 169 by 338, as below -

The mean slope of the upper passages is somewhat less (7). The origin is also at sea level,
396 (4 X 99) north of pyramid centre. The passage line extended passes through the junction of the
south wall and ceiling of the King's chamber.
Here the passage lines are shown magnified -
 Now let us look at the relations between Khufu and Khafre with reference to the 'Theon'
scheme -

The vertical axis is divided in the proportion 169 : 239 (defined by the intersection of the
King's chamber south shaft and pyramid axis). The horizontal distance between the centre of Khufu
and the south wall of the King's chamber is 26, and to the centre of Khafre is 676 (456 +220), or 26
squared. So a rectangle may be drawn between the two pyramids with dimensions 169 X 676
(shown in red). In fact a number of 1 : 4 rectangles are displayed in this section.
When a square is drawn on the height of Khufu it locates a point 280 north of Khufu centre,
and from there to Khafre centre measures 956, or 4 X 239 (shown in red). The horizontal distance
between Khafre centre and the south base of Khufu is 456 = 4 X 114. The Khufu shafts locate a
level 268 asl and the origin of the upper passages of Khufu is 1072 (or 4 X 268) north of Khafre
centre (shown in blue). And, referring back to the Butler diagram above, the north base of Khufu
horizontally to Menkaure centre is 1632, or 4 times the vertical height of 408. In addition the
granite base of Khafre is 134 (268/2) asl, and the floor of the horizontal passage leading to the
subterranean chamber is 114/2 = 57 asl.
The proportion 1 : 4 is found in other egyptian monuments, typically for the batter of
mastabas.
 Turning to the site in plan, I noticed that the cardinal plan appeared to have been rotated
through 45 degrees as shown below (figures from Petrie's survey) -

The pink and blue rectangles are almost identical. The diagonal distance of 676, formed by
the NW corner of Khufu and SE corner of Menkaure, is bisected by the centre of Khafre. The SW
corner of Menkaure is also defined by this diagram.
 If we now extend pyramid faces down to sea level we create the plan shown below -

The diagonal NE/SW distance between Khafre and Khufu is 929.5 (11/2 X 169), and
between Khafre and Menkaure 845 (10/2 X 169), total 1774.5 = 21/2 X 169 (the pink rectangles).
Remarkably, when pyramid faces are extended down to sea level a rectangle is created (in blue)
whose long side measures 2501.9 (ideal 2509.5 = 10/2 X 239). (The short side of this rectangle is
less precise – 959 for the ideal 956 = 4 X 239.) From this it seems that the egyptians contrived a
surface plan that would be in a root two relation with the virtual sea level plan. Not a trivial
exercise.
 As to the cardinal sea level plan, the E/W dimensions would seem to be ideally 670 and
947.5 cubits, or 2.5 X 268 and 2.5 X 379, which terms may also be derived from Theon's diagram
as we have seen -

But what of the NS distance of 985.7 between Khufu sea level north base and Khafre
centre?

Hale drew attention to a prominent hill to the south east of the site called Gebel Ghibli (9).
He noticed that an equilateral triangle could be drawn between pyramid centres and the hill, as
shown below -
 Here is the view from Gebel Ghibli -

Hale noticed that other constructions align on this hill – a 345 triangle linking GG and
Khafre centre (in red) ; a construction derived from the NS distance between Khufu and Khafre
centres (in red) ; and a square can be added as well (in green) -
 Looking at the situation on Gebel Ghibli in more detail we see that these constructions are
not congruent (units are cubits south and east of Khafre centre) -

Choosing the 345 alignment and constructions centred on Khufu because they are congruent,
locating this point 985.7 south and 1314.5 east of Khafre, it can be seen that Hale's alignments
would appear to corroborate the plan described above -

Note that the diagonal dimension 929.5 is divided in the ratio 7 : 4.

 Expanding this diagram to include Menkaure we obtain -

A square of side 2626 ( = 2 X 1314.5 = 11 X 239 ) contains the diagonal plan of side 1859
( = 2 X 929.5 = 11 X 169). A 345 triangle, centred on Khafre, is constructed with dimensions
1314.5 by 985.7, locating Khufu north sea level base and Gebel Ghibli.

The diagonal 929.5 is divided into the ratio 7 : 4 by the NW corner of Khufu and the side of
the square, similarly divided, locates Menkaure south base 836.5 south from Khafre centre. This
diagram defines the profile of Khafre as 985.7/1314.5 = 3/4, and Khufu as 836.5/1314.5 = 7/11.

Referring to the 10:11 relation between the NS distances from the centre of Khafre to the
sea level and limestone bases (896 : 985.7) of Khufu, we find the same relation locating the centre
of Menkaure (845 : 929.5) along the diagonal. (The black rectangle).
 In conclusion, the Giza architect would seem to have devised a three-dimensional plan at the
outset of building, to be followed by his successors. A major theme was a play on the square and its
diagonal, expressed in various ways, and built on a simple numerical sequence later attributed to
Theon of Smyrna. Root two was evidently seen as an important and probably sacred relation –
perhaps a magical metaphor for death and rebirth (no doubt involving the college of priests at
Heliopolis, itself lying on a 45 degree azimuth across the river). Khufu and Menkaure appear to
share the same 7/11 profile and are harmoniously disposed relative to Khafre – north to Khufu and
along the diagonal to Menkaure, such that Giza might be imagined as intended to express a
'narrative', from the first pyramid to the last. The proportions of chambers within the pyramid,
whether tomb chamber or serdab, were derived from the layout, apparently to bond the plan
together. The Giza complex appears designed to work as a whole rather than representing the
separate aspirations of individual kings.

It appears probable that Khufu's architects devised the plan and purposely built his pyramid
near the edge of the plateau, leaving the more dominating position for the pyramid allocated to
Khafre, and quarrying around the natural ramp leading up to the plateau that would later become
Khafre's causeway, as shown here -

Towards the end of the project, after the pyramids of Khufu, Djedefre, and Khafre had been
built, Menkaure's builders seem to have been in a hurry to finish off the pyramid complex – leaving
the granite casing in the rough, facing temples in mud brick, and satellite pyramids left as stepped
core structures. Even the town lying nearby, south of the Wall of the Crow, was apparently
abandoned while the pyramid was being built. Perhaps the anomalous orientation of this pyramid
and irregular base are simply building errors.
 One must ask why terms met at Giza are not mentioned in mathematical writings. But only a
few fragments remain from the Middle Kingdom, and almost nothing from the Old Kingdom. On
the other hand antecedents to Giza geometry actually are found in the pyramids of Sneferu at
Meydum and Dashur (10), suggesting that it was his architects who not only formalized the classic
pyramid complex at Meydum (that was to last through the Old Kingdom), but at the same time
developed a body of abstract thought within a religious context, which was to find its grandest
expression on the Giza plateau. Thereafter the cult appears to have changed, with the promotion of
the tragic god Osiris, and the building of smaller pyramids containing religious texts. RJC. 7.7.14

NOTES

1. W.M. Flinders Petrie, The pyramids and temples of Gizeh. 1883. Online here -
http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/index.htm

2. Discussed in the appendix below.

3. J.A.R. Legon. 1991. 'The Giza Site Plan Revisited', Göttinger Miszellen. 124. 69-78. Legon's papers are
available on his website - http://www.legon.demon.co.uk/

4. J.A.R Legon. 1989. 'The Geometry of the Great Pyramid', Göttinger Miszellen. 10. 57-64.

5. Gantenbrink's website - http://www.cheops.org/

6. Butler, H.R. 1998. Egyptian Pyramid Geometry. Benben Publications.Mississauga, Ontario.

7. Butler's work is not available online but I discuss the limestone-base/chamber plan in more detail, on this
page– http://www.sevenislands.50webs.com/the_horizon_of_khufu/comparison.htm. (Note the site is
rather old and needs revision.) The material discussed here first appeared as - Cook, R. J. 2003. 'A
symmetrical plan at Giza'. Discussions in Egyptology. 55. 7-14.

8. Legon. 1989. op.cit. Legon found that the slopes of the ascending passage and grand gallery
could be defined by ratios of height to sloping length of floors : respectively 33/75 and 39/88 ; and giving
two slightly different angles. Their mean coincides rather well with the line of the passage to sea level.

9. The summit of Gebel Ghibli (or Qibli) is about 114 cubits asl, the same as Khufu base. Hale's findings are
reported in : Collins, A. 2009. 'Beneath the Pyramids'. A.R.E. press.

10. See Butler and also J.A.R. Legon. 1990. 'The Geometry of the Bent Pyramid', Göttinger Miszellen. 116
(1990) 65-72, 71. Also J.A.R. Legon. 1990. The 14:11 proportion at Meydum. Discussions in Egyptology.
17 (1990), 15-22.

APPENDIX : The problem of Menkaure.

At this pyramid Petrie was prevented from measuring the NW corner and west side because of the
mounds of rubble that existed in his time. Nevertheless, he showed that the NE and SE corners are right
angles, and established a base size of 201.5 cubits.

The pyramid is built on bedrock and Petrie noticed that the bottom granite course is thicker than the
ones above (which average roughly 2 cubits in thickness) and was left in the rough along the bottom edge,
clearly to be dressed to accept a pavement as at Khafre's pyramid - but this was never laid.
 Here are Petrie's figures for course heights (in inches) -

Petrie believed there were only 16 granite courses because he could find no granite fragments above
this level, and the particularly thick seventeenth course suggested that this was where the limestone began.
However, Butler points out that the more likely break is at the top of the twentieth course, as shown here -

The outer surfaces of the granite blocks were left in the rough, save for bevelled edges at the
intended casing slope line. From these Petrie estimated the pyramid slope at about 51.33 degrees. However,
he also found pieces of the smooth-sided limestone casing which gave 51.9 – the same as Khufu.
Subsequently Robins and Shute, using a photometric method, also estimated 14/11.

Lehner, in his book 'The Complete Pyramids', accepts Petrie's lower slope angle but says the base is
rectangular – about 195 to 200 cubits. And subsequent Giza Plateau Mapping Project statements suggest the
pyramid is trapezoidal. The full state of affairs awaits publication of the modern survey.
 Below some different possibilities are shown side by side -

On the left, the, ideal dimensions demanded by the analyses presented here, with slope 14/11 and
base 201. On the right in red, Petrie's arrangement with the lower slope angle and base 2015. Below this in
green, Lehner's result (taking 198 as a mean of his base length figures), lowering the height of the pyramid
substantially. Butler grappled with the problem – was apex height asl 269 (giving a limestone base 140) , or
268 – the 'ideal' height?

Khufu and Menkaure, in various ways, form a 'symmetry' with respect to Khafre. Here for example
each of the four blue rectangles has the proportion 1: 5 , and the height of Menkaure asl is equal to Khufu
shaft exit level -
 But these are idealised whole-number approximations – centre Khafre to Khufu sea-level north base
is strictly 985.88 according to the plan outlined in this paper. There are other relations at Giza which appear
to be approximated in whole numbers (see Butler for instance), as well as potential astronomical terms. And
one is prompted to ask : could the architects have attempted to blend layers of geometrical meaning in their
project, much as they were able to correlate an array of complementary religious ideas?

If, as a result of the ongoing survey at Giza, it turns out that Menkaure's base is smaller than Petrie's
figure, then the scheme described here loses precision with regard to the diagonal distance between Khafre
centre and the SE corner of Menkaure. In other respects it reflects ground truth rather well.

As a postscript, a recent GPMP newsletter, AERAGRAM, includes the following article -

http://www.aeraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/aeragram13_1.pdf

- according to a new survey the north side of Menkaure is 66 feet (!) south of its position on the
GPMP base map. Yet here -

https://www.academia.edu/6056783/Where_Precisely_are_the_Three_Pyramids_of_Giza

- we read : “Taken together, using the sources above [Petrie and GPMP], I believe we can locate all
three pyramids at Giza with an accuracy of +/- 10 centimeters. “

Satellite photos, although of course being useless for fine analysis, do not support such a glaring
discrepancy but rather tend to favour Petrie's figures. Nor does the GPMP map appear to fit Petrie so the
positions of the 3 pyramids on the GPMP base map must have come from some other source. A curious
situation.